HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-06-1999 - 8j1
r
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 1999
Action Agenda
Item # `
SUBJECT: Proposed Bicycle Plan Component to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No
ATTACHMENTS:
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Slade McCalip, extension 2595
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
- 3/4/99 Draft Planning Board Minutes
Hillsborough
-732-8181
- 3/19/99 S. McCalip Memo
Durham
-688-7331
- Draft Text Bike Route Descriptions
Mebane
-227-2031
- Draft Bike Route Letter Designation Map
Chapel Hill
-967-9251
- 2/22/99 Draft Joint Public Hearing Minutes
- 8/5/98 Planning Board Minutes
- Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
PURPOSE: To consider a draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the update to the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND: The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force was appointed by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners on November 19, 1997 with the following specific charge: To prepare a Bicycle Plan
Component to the Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including
recommendations for implementation, for all of Orange County outside of the municipal extra- territorial
planning jurisdictions and the transition areas of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. To perform research for
presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on innovative bicycle and pedestrian connections
between subdivisions and other developments. The Bicycle Plan Component should be based on the
recommendations in the DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan and the results of the 1995 Orange County Bicycle
Suitability Study. Appointment to the Task Force will expire with the Hoard of Commissioners' decision on
whether or not to adopt the recommended Bicycle Plan Component.
The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan over a 6 -month period.
The Task Force provided their input as to what the Goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes
are the most important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with
recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task Force
endorsed the draft plan contained herein at their June meeting.
At the Planning Board's August 5, 1998 meeting the Board accepted the draft plan and forwarded it on to the
Commissioners with the recommendations as made by the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force and modified
by the Planning Board (see recommendations 1 through 4 listed in last paragraph below).
At the Joint Public Hearing held on February 22, 1999, the Board of Commissioners considered the draft plan.
2�e.
Commissioner Jacobs requested that verbal descriptions of the bike routes in the plan be included in the text
(see attached Draft Text Bike Route Descriptions). He also requested that the secondary priority routes by
labeled with letters instead of numbers (see attached Draft Bike Route Letter Designation Map).
Orange County Bicycle Plan Component Task Force Members Mark Schultz and Chris van Hasselt both
requested that the Bike Plan be acted upon with expediency.
The Draft Bike Plan was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Commissioners no later
than May 4, 1999.
At the Planning Board's March 4, 1999 meeting discussion on the draft Bicycle Plan included the following:
Draft Text Bike Route Descriptions, Draft Bike Route Letter Designation Map, Bicycle Tourism, Bicycle
Safety, and Implementation of the Bike Plan (see attached Draft 3/4/99 Planning Board Minutes and 3/19/99 S.
McCalip Memo).
The Planning Board unanimously accepted the draft plan and forwarded it on to the Commissioners reaffirming
their approval of the plan and the following recommendations as made by the Bicycle Plan Component Task
Force and modified by the Planning Board at their August 5, 1998 meeting:
1) That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed;
2) Dedicate part-time (the task force recommended full -time) staff support for the advisory committee;
3) Update the 1974 Bikeways Act; and
4) That this task force remain together until after TIP project e -3606 is complete ($ 50,000 that the
State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approximate fiscal impact can be determined depending on the Board's
guidance about the amount of part-time staff support for the Bicycle Advisory Committee that should be
allocated to this function.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed Bicycle Plan
Component to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and also that the following actions be
considered in a timely manner:
1) Form a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee;
2) Dedicate part-time staff support to the bicycle advisory committee;
3) Initiate an update to the 1974 Bikeways Act; and
4) Keep the current Bicycle Task Force together until after TIP'project E -3606 is complete ($ 50,000
that the State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map).
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Rod Visser, Assistant County Manager
DATE: April 6, 1999
RE: Abstract Replacement Pages
Attached are replacement pages 1 and 2 for Item 8-j on tonight's meeting agenda (Proposed Bicycle Plan Component to
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). We noted a copier glitch, in that the right half of the original
page 2 apparently did not copy properly. We apologize for any inconvenience stemming from this error.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 6, 1999
Action Agenda
Item #__�'L__
SUBJECT: Proposed Bicycle Plan Component to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections
ATTACHMENTS:
- 3/4/99 Draft Planning Board Minutes
- 3/19/99 S. McCalip Memo
- Draft Text Bike Route Descriptions
- Draft Bike Route Letter Designation Map
- 2/22/99 Draft Joint Public Hearing Minutes
- 8/5/98 Planning Board Minutes
- Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X —No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Slade McCalip, extension 2595
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
-732-8181
Durham
-688-7331
Mebane
-227-2031
Chapel Hill
-967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the update to the Transportation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND: The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force was appointed by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners on November 19, 1997 with the following specific charge: To prepare a Bicycle Plan
Component to the Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including
recommendations for implementation, for all of Orange County outside of the municipal extra - territorial
planning jurisdictions and the transition areas of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. To perform research for
presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on innovative bicycle and pedestrian connections
between subdivisions and other developments. The Bicycle Plan Component should be based on the
recommendations in the DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan and the results of the 1995 Orange County Bicycle
Suitability Study. Appointment to the Task Force will expire with the Board of Commissioners' decision on
whether or not to adopt the recommended Bicycle Plan Component.
The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan over a 6 -month period.
The Task Force provided their input as to what the Goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes
are the most important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with
recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task Force
endorsed the draft plan contained herein at their June meeting.
At the Planning Board's August 5, 1998 meeting the Board accepted the draft plan and forwarded it on to the
Commissioners with the recommendations as made by the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force and modified
by the Planning Board (see recommendations 1 through 4 listed in last paragraph below).
At the Joint Public Hearing held on February 22, 1999, the Board of Commissioners considered the draft plan.
V�
Commissioner Jacobs requested that verbal descriptions of the bike routes in the plan be included in the text
(see attached Draft Text Bike Route Descriptions). He also requested that the secondary priority routes by
labeled with letters instead of numbers (see attached Draft Bike Route Letter Designation Map).
Orange County Bicycle Plan Component Task Force Members Mark Schultz and Chris van Hasselt both
requested that the Bike Plan be acted upon with expediency.
The Draft Bike Plan was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Commissioners no later
than May 4, 1999.
At the Planning Board's March 4, 1999 meeting discussion on the draft Bicycle Plan included the following:
Draft Text Bike Route Descriptions, Draft Bike Route Letter Designation Map, Bicycle Tourism, Bicycle
Safety, and Implementation of the Bike Plan (see attached Draft 3/4/99 Planning Board Minutes and 3/19/99 S.
McCalip Memo).
The Planning Board unanimously accepted the draft plan and forwarded it on to the Commissioners reaffirming
their approval of the plan and the following recommendations as made by the Bicycle Plan Component Task
Force and modified by the Planning Board at their August 5, 1998 meeting:
1) That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed;
2) Dedicate part-time (the task force recommended full -time) staff support for the advisory committee;
3) Update the 1974 Bikeways Act; and
4) That this task force remain together until after TIP project e -3606 is complete ($ 50,000 that the
State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approximate fiscal impact can be determined depending on the Board's
guidance about the amount of part-time staff support for the Bicycle Advisory Committee that should be
allocated to this function.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed Bicycle Plan
Component to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and also that the following actions be
considered in a timely manner:
1) Form a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee;
2) Dedicate part-time staff support to the bicycle advisory committee;
3) Initiate an update to the 1974 Bikeways Act; and
4) Keep the current Bicycle Task Force together until after TIP project E -3606 is complete ($ 50,000
that the State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map).
3
requiring three (3) complete site layouts. Kirk responded that is a routine
requirement from NCDOT.
Allison asked how many lots are on the cul -de -sac and Kirk responded 4.
Strayhorn asked about a dedicated right -of -way for the property to the
south. Kirk responded that there is a private road that accesses that
property.
MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff.
Seconded by Selkirk.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS PRESENTED FOR PUBLIC HEARING
(FEBRUARY 22, 1999)
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(1) Bicycle Transportation Plan Component
Presentation by Slade McCalip.
This item is to consider a draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
(A copy of the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan is an attachment to
these minutes on pages )
The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan over a 6 -month period. The Task Force provided
their input as to what the Goals of this plan should be and also which
cycling routes are the most important to the cyclists of Orange County.
Staff was then directed to develop a plan with recommendations for
implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes.
The Task Force endorsed the draft plan at their June meeting.
At the Planning Board's August 5, 1998 meeting the Board accepted the
draft plan and forwarded to the Commissioners with the following
recommendations as made by the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force
and modified by the Planning Board:
L That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed;
2. Dedicate part-time (the task force recommended full -time) staff support
for the advisory committee;
3. Update the 1974 North Carolina Bikeways Act; and
4. That this task force remain together until after TIP project a -3606 is
complete ($50,000 that the State has programmed for Orange County
to develop a bicycle suitability map).
The Board of Commissioners considered the draft plan at the Public
Hearing on February 22, 1999.
Commissioner Gordon requested that the Commission for the
Environment undertake items 1 and 2.
Commissioner Jacobs requested that verbal descriptions of the bike routes
in the plan be included in the tent. He also requested that the secondary
priority routes be labeled with letters instead of numbers.
Commissioner Halkiotis was opposed to Commissioner Gordon's request
that items 1 and 2 be undertaken by the Commission for the
Environment. He feels that the current Bicycle Plan Component Task
Force should be allowed to continue their work.
Orange County Bicycle Plan Component Task Force Members Mark
Schultz and Chris van Hasselt both requested that the Bike Plan be acted
upon with expediency.
The Draft Bike Plan was referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to the Commissioners no later than May 4, 1999.
McCalip noted that he would be presenting the plan to the Commission
for the Environment at their next meeting on Monday, March 8.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Bicycle Plan
Component to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Barrows asked what McCalip felt was the best way to give this item
legitimacy and keep it moving forward in the way it needs to go; as
Commissioner Gordon suggested, or, maintaining the Task Force.
McCalip responded that David Stancil had an informal conversation with
Commissioner Gordon and she indicated that she was not sure the
Commission for the Environment is the best place for the Bicycle Plan
Task Force. McCalip continued, that to legitimize this and move forward
with it will take some staff support. State laws must be updated, design
standards enforced, and lobbying the State for more maintenance money
to get the roads widened and paved shoulders.
Barrows asked about the best way to move ahead with the plan. McCalip
responded that the best thing to do is to adopt the Plan and then have the
Regional Transportation Planning Agency incorporate it into their Plan.
Selkirk asked about the next series of events if the plan is adopted.
McCalip responded that the next step would be to take the adopted plan
to the Durham WO. McCalip noted that he had distributed to the Board
an announcement of 4 Public Outreach Meetings on the 2025
Transportation Plan and encouraged Planning Board members to attend
and provide input.
Selkirk asked how many organizations must the plan go through before it
becomes regional. McCalip responded that the request has already been
made to NCDOT. The need for full or part-time staff support is due to
the amount of research that must be done. The amount of available right -
of -way must be determined and then a TIP request must be made. These
are made in a two year cycle. Selkirk felt there should be some kind of
timeline so the request doesn't get lost.
5
Barrows asked if McCalip could address the safety issue which seemed to
be of great concern to NCDOT; having children and novice riders as well
as experienced riders on congested roads. She continued asking if roads
could be classified for the level of bike riders. McCalip responded that
was addressed in the suitability analysis. Two of those have been done
here and 90% of the roads in Orange County are only suitable for
advanced cyclists. They are too narrow. McCalip referred to areas that
have rider suitability maps and presented some of those maps.
Barrows continued that while maps were one way, she was thinking also
of designation signs along the routes. McCalip responded that the whole
concept of bicycle transportation is that cyclists can operate a bicycle
safely in mixed traffic with cars. That means that a cyclist must be of a
certain age (around 14 -15) and have certain skills (be able to operate a
car). It's better to have a driver's license because bicyclists have to obey
all of the same rules as drivers. He noted that he had a call about the
safety of Arthur Minnis Road for children to ride bicycles and he told the
caller it was not safe for children because of the speed limit.
McCalip that there should be paved shoulders on assigned bicycle
routes.
Barrows noted that she had received a letter from Blair Pollock, who is
on the Chapel Hill Bicycle Task Force, in support of the Plan.
Katz asked about the timefi=e for the first bike lanes. McCalip
responded that he felt it would be a long uphill battle because NCDOT is
just beginning to realize the need for funds for maintenance and more
pavement. It will also need legislative support. Katz continued that bike
lanes also have some tourist value. McCalip agreed, noting that some
states advertise cycling across their states. Katz felt that if safe bike
lanes were provided, there would be many using bicycles as their
transportation for work and not just recreational.
Mark Shultz, a member of the Bicycle Task Force, stated that it felt it is
an issue that cannot be avoided. The critical mass ?? in Chapel Hill rides
bicycles and he encouraged the Board to approve the Plan and make it
safe for cyclists.
Chuck Tharp, also a member of the Task Force, stated that he felt there
would be many who would bike to work if safety was not such a factor.
He felt that encouraging cyclists, by addressing the safety issue, would
ease some of the congestion on the roads.
McCalip informed the Board about the effective bicycling course which
has been held in the Planning Department with 4 1/2 hours class time and
4 1/2 hours on the road in traffic. He asked that anyone interested in the
course notify him and he would provide information.
McCalip stated that he had sent a copy of the draft plan to all surrounding
jurisdictions and the comments received did not really change anything in
the plan. He also sent one to the Raleigh MPO or CAMPO (Capitol Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization), and they provided some good
comments that could "dress the plan up" but did not make substantial
changes. He noted that Carrboro is the only "adjoining" jurisdiction that
provided any comment on the plan and they were very supportive.
Andrews asked if the percentage of people biking to work in this area be
as high as the 20 -25% mentioned by Mr. Tharp considering our seasons.
Mr. Tharp stated that the weather has been very mild in this area and he
has been riding all year. He noted that those cycling to work are
prepared for weather changes. Andrews continued asking about cycling
in very hot weather. The response was that it is less stressful to ride a
bike than to run.
Barrows asked if the recommendation should include the request for
staff. McCalip responded that previously, the Planning Board had
indicated a half -time position. Since the Board was not changing its
recommendation on the half -time position, it was decided not to include
the request for staff in the motion.
MOTION: Brooks moved approval of the Bicycle Plan as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Selkirk.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Barrows referred to the material she had distributed regarding inadequate
public facilities. She noted that Chapel Hill has held public hearings,
relating to updating the comprehensive plan, and had a speaker from
Burlington, Vermont who said his area had a plan to address the issue of
inadequate public facilities. The subdivision that triggers the
overcrowding of schools, roads and other facilities, knows that the
subdivision will not be approved until those components are fixed.
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, stated that the mechanism being
referred to is Adequate Public Facilities for Growth Management
Concurrency. Concurrency, as it is called, means that facilities are to be
available concurrent with the development as it happens. He explained
some of the ingredients of a Concurrency Management System. The most
important aspect of the Concurrency Management System is that all of
the development that has been approved cannot be over capacity. You
cannot ask a developer to go back and fix something if his development
has already been approved. These are some of the problems that Orange
County will be facing and need to prepare for. He noted that a part of the
Concurrency Management System will be an Adequate Facilities
Ordinance.
Benedict stated that the Commissioners have asked for goals and
objectives regarding a Concurrency Management System and he will be
preparing that information within the next month for those goals to go
into the budget. He indicated he would report to the Planning Board on
those goals.
In response to questions from Katz, Benedict explained how such a
system and plan worked in the area in which he worked prior to moving
to Orange County as Planning Director.
Memo
TO: James Selkirk, Orange County Planning Board Member
Cc: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Gene Bell, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
From: Slade�lVlcCalip, Transportation Planner
Dais: 03/19/99
Re: Implementation Schedule for Orange County Bicycle Transportation Element if adopted by
BOCC on April 6, 1999
During the Planning Board meeting on March 4, 1999 you raised a very good question about what
actions would need to be taken to implement the proposed Bicycle Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan if adopted by the County Commissioners. This memo is intended to provide you
with an outline of the actions that need to become part of the Bicycle Coordinators (or whomevers)
work program to implement the Bike Plan.
Page 15, Section IV Implementation of the Draft Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan, notes
that the following actions must be accomplished by the year 2000 (e.g., in 8 months) "Change local.
regional. and state laws plans programs and policies° to be more bicycle compatible. To give
you an idea of what this means I have developed the following broad overview of what needs to be
accomplished:
LOCAL (ORANGE COUNM CHANGES NEEDED:
LAWS: This would include amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations (and other
regulations & ordinances as necessary). Proposed changes would include provisions such as "end of
trip facilities" (i.e., bike racks, etc), "pave backs" (pavement provided at the end of gravel roads and
driveway accesses onto bike routes), incorporating the adopted routes into the official maps for each
plan, ordinance and regulation.
PLANS: This would include amending the Comp Plan further to insure that land uses are compatible
with the Bike Plan, the EDD Manual to insure its provisions are compatible with the Comp Plan's Bike
Element, and possibly amending the Joint Planning Area Plan in cooperation with Carrboro and Chapel
Hill to insure that cycling is accommodated. A Bicycle Element should also be developed for the
Master Recreation and Parks Plan. The most significant amendments necessary are the development
and adoption of new Functional Classifications and Access Management Guidelines. These will
provide the necessary connections between the growth of land use development and its interaction
with the highway system.
PROGRAMS: Education and training programs would need to be institutionalized in the school
systems for elementary, middle and high school students. Drivers education classes should include
blocks of instruction on NC Bicycle Laws. Adult education classes need to be provided to teach
emergency bicycle maneuvers and how to use a bicycle for transportation purposes (e.g., ride in
traffic). Helmet promotions should be held. Bicycle Tourism promotion needs to be instituted after
Orange County becomes more bicycle friendly and has developed a system of recreational routes.
• Page 1
8
POLICIES: All planning staff should have to attend bicycle specific training. A Bicycle Coordinator
Position must be established. The Bicycle Coordinator must be given the opportunity to become
bicycle instructor qualified. All transportation projects should consider their impact on the cycling
community. Biennial State Transportation Improvement Program requests should always include at
least a 1 % commitment of the total request for bike facilities.
REGIONAL (DURHAM - CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO MPO) CHANGES
NEEDED:
LAWS: Model ordinances (i.e., Zoning, Subdivision Regs, and Access Management) need to be
developed and promoted for adoption by the land use planning agencies in the MPO to coordinate a
comprehensive and regional bicycle friendly environment and to encourage regional cycling.
PLANS: The Bicycle Element of the DCHC 2025 Comprehensive Transportation Plan needs to include
the most viable provisions of the Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan. All other elements of the
DCHC 2025 Comprehensive Transportation Plan must be reviewed to determine their compatibility
with the bicycle provisions of the Bicycle Element and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
PROGRAMS: Regional education and encouragement programs should be developed and
implemented (i.e., a regional bike -to -work day, helmet safety campaign, etc.).
POLCIES: Require that all regionally significant highway and transit projects include bicycle provisions.
Adopt a policy whereby a set percentage of the total Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program funds will be spent exclusively on bicycle transportation (e.g., 1 %).
STATE (NC DOT ET AL) CHANGES NEEDED:
LAWS: An overall analysis is needed to document all the state statutes that pertain to or impact the
use of bicycles for transportation (i.e., road funding, disbursement of the Highway Trust Fund, road
maintenance, and the fact that counties cannot fund road improvements).
PLANS: The current NC Bicycling Plan has no goals to construct any fixed amount of bicycling
improvements based upon mileage or other quantifiable performance measure, which keeps NC DOT
from being accountable for making significant progress. Apparently, the most pressing current goal of
the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation is to spend the amount of bicycle construction
funds as allocated by the NC Board of Transportation. Rather than to request the amount of funds
necessary to complete a certain amount of miles of improvements. Likewise, substantial goals (i.e., to
improve 1% of the highway miles each year) to improve the roadways designated as NC Bicycle
Routes need to be adopted and implemented.
PROGRAMS: The current NC DOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation needs to be
expanded, especially since they provide most if not all, the bicycle planning support to most of the
towns and counties in NC. They need more personnel, a larger division budget, and more funds in the
State Transportation Improvement Program for bicycle transportation projects. Given the amount of
technical support provided by the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation now, if they are
provided more resources, a lot more could be done on a statewide basis to make biking in NC less
stressful.
POLICIES: All current NC DOT Bicycle Construction Policies need re writing to make the policies
comprehensive, clear, and concise. As it is now, the policy is too convoluted and often leaves out
factors that impact the actual programming of a bike project in the STIP.
• Page 2
ID
MM
70M
A: Goals and Objectives - The Goals for this plan were developed by the Bicycle Task Force at their third
meeting. Subsequent meetings were used for the discussion and development of how to implement the
goals (i.e., objectives to be accomplished to progress toward accomplishment of the goals). The progress
of the implementation of this plan can be gauged through an assessment of the number and type of pro -
bike indicators.
GOAL #1.
CONSTRUCT BICYCLE FACILITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT WILL MARE CYCLING FOR
TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES SAFER, MORE CONVENIENT, AND MORE EFFICIENT.
GOAL #1 OBJECTIVES. (or things that would make goal #1 happen if they were to happen)
WIDEN all Primary Priority Bicycle Transportation highway travel lanes to 12 feet and provide 4 feet of
paved shoulder before signing them as a Bicycle Route (see Orange County Proposed Priority Bicycle
Transportation Routes Map, July, 1998 on page 6 of this plan, and Table 1 below).
Primary Bicycle Route
Number (Road Name)
From
To
# of
Miles
1 (NC 86)
Hillsborough (vic I -85)
Chapel Hill (vic Whitfield Rd)
6.5
2 (Old NC 10)
NC 86
NC 751
Q,6-\
3 (Old Greensboro Rd)
Chapel Hill (vic Jones Ferry Rd)
Alamance County Line
in Rd)
Durham County Line
Chapel Hill (vic Dry Creek Rd)
1.6
4-04itfield Rd)
NC 86
Erwin Road
3.4
6 (Old NC 86)
Hillsborough (vic Oakdale Dr)
Carrboro (vic Hickory Forrest Rd)
5.2
7 (Jones Ferry Rd)
Chapel Hill (vic Old Greensboro)
Chatham County Line
4.0
8 (Mt Carmel Ch Rd)
Chapel Hill (vic Parker Rd)
Chatham County Line
1.5
i ame 1. Primary Ynonty Bicycle Transportation Routes
IDENTIFY staff and elected officials responsible for bicycling improvements.
INCLUDE bicycling improvements as a staff assigned responsibility with an elected official identified as
being bicycling supportive.
ESTABLISH a Bicycle Advisory Committee at the local and regional levels.
CREATE and FORMALIZE a Bicycle Transportation Program in Orange County to include; commitment
of resources, developing the primary and secondary routes, developing and implementing the education,
enforcement, and encouragement programs to change cycling and motorist behavior to make cycling safer.
CHANGE state and regional bicycle transportation policies and programs to include dedicated funding for
bicycle improvements to include funding "triggers" (i.e., in areas of poor air quality, more cycling facilities
should be funded) based upon regional air quality.
DRAFT Orange County DRAFT
Proposed Priority Bicycle Transportation Routes
Le
Primary Priority
JUIV 1999
44.3 miles
tA� Secondary Priority 100.4 miles
® Requested Order of Implementation
ormpComtYrImuft
7-2-M
10
= Buckhorn Road
= Brookhollow Road
= Efland -Cedar Grove Road
= Coleman Loop Road
= Cornwallis Road
= Carr Store Road
= Dodson's Crossroads
= Dairyland Road
= Dimmocks Mill Road
= Faucette Mill Road
= Frank Perry Road
= Mt. Herman Church Road
= Highland Farm Road
= Lebanon Road
= Mt. Sinai Road
= New Hope Church Road
= Orange Grove Road
= Pleasant Green Road
= US 70 Bypass
= New Sharon Church Road
= St. Mary's Road
= Schley Road
= Saw Mill Road West
= White Cross Road
= Walnut Grove Church Roa(
M 2�ff7
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1999
DRAFT OF FOLLOWING SECTION ONLY:
D. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
b) Bicycle Transportation Plan Component
This item was presented by Planner Slade McCalip for the purpose of receiving citizen comment
on a draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the update to the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. He briefly reviewed some of the advantages of bicycle transportation, such as a
reduction in traffic congestion and noise and air pollution. There would also be a reduced need for road
maintenance as well as being a significant cost savings to the user. Bicycle transportation is the most efficient,
least polluting type of transportation that exists.. During the Task Force's analysis of the roads in Orange
County they found that the roads are too narrow for cars by themselves. When bicycles are added it becomes
a danger to the cyclist and to a lesser degree to the driver. This plan addresses that issue by defining priority
routes so that cyclists can get around between the urban areas of Orange County and use their bikes for
transportation. The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan. The
Task Force provided their input as to what the goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes are
the most important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with
recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task Force
endorsed this draft plan at their June meeting. At the Planning Board's August 5, 1998 meeting the Board
accepted the draft plan and sent it to the Commissioners with the following recommendations from the Bicycle
Plan Component Task Force and modified by the Planning Board:
1) That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed;
2) Dedicate part-time (the task force recommended full -time) staff support for the advisory Committee;
3) Update the 1974 Bikeways Act; and
4) That this task force remain together until after TIP project a -3606 is complete ($ 50,000 that the State has
programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map).
QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Chair Gordon clarified that the Board of Commissioners are simply being asked to review the plan,
make recommendations and then make comments and/or suggestions to the Planning Board for a
recommendation. She commented that the Orange County Commission For the Environment has stated that
they are interested in this project and they have indicated they would like to undertake suggestion #1 and #2
which were listed in the agenda abstract. Those items are 1) that a permanent and formal bicycle advisory
committee be formed, and 2) that part-time staff be dedicated for the advisory committee. The Commission
For the Environment would actually incorporate those tasks into its work.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked clarification as to why they were interested in taking on this project.
Chair Gordon stated that they are interested in this issue. She also commented that this Task Force
will end unless it is made a permanent committee. She felt that it was a philosophical point as to whether it
was best for the Commission to handle this or to have another Task Force remain in place.
Commissioner Halkiotis stated that he was opposed to this suggestion. He felt that the Bicycle Plan
Component Task Force should be allowed to continue their work as they have indicated a desire to do so.
QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD:
None.
C:vb1CyM.d0C
Last WW@d 02=M 4:07 PM
QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: 12
Mark Schulz, a member of the Orange County Bicycle Task Force as well as a commuter cyclist who
bicycles to work, spoke in support of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Component of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. He strongly supports this plan. He regularly commutes from his home in Hillsborough to his work
at UNC- Chapel Hill. He has bicycled over 2500 miles for the last two years and most of those miles were
commuting miles. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to give this proposed Plan their endorsement.
He gave several recent examples of times he was run off of the road by motorists passing him illegally. In both
of those instances a combination of lack of courtesy and a lack of shoulders on the road caused him to be
forced into the embankment. He asked that the Board approve the plan tonight rather than refer it to the
Planning Board. The Bicycle Task Force completed this Plan in August, 1998 and he strongly requested that it
be adopted tonight and be referred for regional planning.
County Attorney Gledhill indicated that this plan needs to be referred to the Planning Board because
this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the law requires that the Planning Board review the proposal
after this Public Hearing.
Chris van Hasselt, Chair of the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force, spoke in support of this proposed
plan. He stated that many of these improvements are needed immediately. Unfortunately, it will be years
before some of these bike lanes and routes are completed. The demand will only continue to increase. He
mentioned that many of the concerns expressed on items heard earlier at this meeting were about the negative
effects of increased traffic. Bicycles are not "the" answer to that problem, but they are one component to an
answer. Putting some of these proposals in place as soon as possible is the first step to seeing a reduction in
traffic by offering a safe alternative means of transportation. After being approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, the proposal must then be considered for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan.
Many of the improvements would not be implemented for some time even if they were approved immediately.
The demand will only increase with time.
Planner McCalip indicated that the first draft of the Regional Transportation Plan is scheduled for initial
review in May of 1999. It would give this plan greater standing if it were presented as an adopted plan.
Commissioner Jacobs questioned the notion that the best north/south routes should be based solely on
the best commuter routes. He observed more bicycling on Old Hwy 86 which seems to be the main
recreational route; however it is a secondary priority in this plan. He asked that verbal descriptions of the
routes be included along with the maps and that a designation other than numbers be used for the secondary
routes.
Planner McCalip commented that if new Hwy 86 were a safer route more of the cyclists would use that
route rather that Old Hwy 86. He also mentioned that many of the long -term commuters are now driving
because it has become so dangerous.
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that one of the items which was discussed earlier in this meeting was
a transportation initiative to be introduced at the Legislature on a statewide basis. This initiative includes
planning for rail stations in Orange County and funding more bike lanes.
Commissioner Brown mentioned that the process may seem slow and frustrating to those citizens who
worked on this plan, however, it is a visionary plan they have produced. She congratulated them on their work.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to refer the
proposed Amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no later than May 4, 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
C:ViWoo.doe
Lag prints" 0201M 4:07 PM
iN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows (Chair), Nell Andrews, SA.M. Brooks, Howard McAdams,
Renee Price, Libby Searles, Jim Selkirk, Bob Strayhorn, Elizabeth Walters.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Allison, Barry Katz, Runyon Woods - all excused
STAFF PRESENT: Emily Cameron, Don Belk, Slade McCalip, Joanna Bradshaw.
AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
Chair suggested that she felt it would be appropriate to send cards of
appreciation to Arnie Katz and Paul Hoecke for their service on the Planning
Board. The Board agreed and Chair indicated she would purchase cards for
members to sign.
AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF )vIINUTES - July 15,1998
Barrows noted a correction on page 1, Board of Adjustment - sentence 3 should
read: By consensus, the Board approved the nomination of Renee Price as the
Planning Board representative on the Board of Adjustment.
Walters noted a correction on page 7, paragraph 3 sentence 9 - and should be
deleted
Barrows noted a correction on page 10, paragraph 3, sentence 3 should read:
Large tracts of at least 50 to 60 acres should be relatively unconstrained
to consider the village option.
MOTION: McAdams moved approval with corrections. Seconded by Walters.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(Corrections have all been made.)
AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS
None.
AGENDA ITEM #7: CONIIVIITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
No meeting.
b. Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
No meeting.
14
Discussion indicated that the Board would like for Cameron to discuss this
concern with the County Attorney in order to determine how such an
amendment could be worded that would address this issue. The suggestion was
to use the term minor subdivision since it was felt that a minor subdivision does
not create a great demand on roads and are usually done to help retirees or
children and is not done for a profit.
AGENDA ITEM #12: REPORTS
a. Draft Bicycle Plan
Presentation by Slade McCalip.
This item is to review a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan for inclusion in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and to review research on
Non - Motorized Transportation Facilities in North Carolina Counties.
The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force was appointed by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners on November 19, 1997 with the following specific
charge: To prepare a Bicycle Plan Component to the Transportation Element of
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including recommendations for
implementation, for all of Orange County outside of the municipal extra-
territorial planning jurisdictions and the transition areas of the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan. To perform research for presentation to the Orange
County Board of Commissioners on innovative bicycle and pedestrian
connections between subdivisions and other developments. The Bicycle Plan
Component should be based on the recommendations in the DCHC Regional
Bicycle Plan and the results of the 1995 Orange County Bicycle Suitability
Study. Appointment to the Task Force will expire with the Board of
Commissioners decision on whether or not to adopt the recommended Bicycle
Plan Component.
The Bicycle Plan Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan over
a 6 -month period The Task Force provided their input as to what the goals of
this plan should be and also which cycling routes are the most important to the
cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with
recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the
priority routes. The Task Force endorsed "the draft plan contained herein at-their
June meeting.
At the request of Commissioner Brown at the November 19, 1997 meeting,
research has been performed to determine what Orange County can do to
increase inter - connectivity between neighborhoods and nearby activities. The
research findings are summarized in the Non - Motorized Transportation
Facilities in North Carolina report. This report outlines the existing policy
conditions that influence pedestrian and bicycle facility planning, design,
construction and maintenance for counties in North Carolina. It also
summarizes results from a statewide survey on pedestrian and bicycle facilities
in other North Carolina counties and explores options and methods that Orange
County may employ to encourage accessibility and mobility on foot and by
bicycle.
Planning Staff recommendation is: Receive the Draft Bicycle Transportation
Plan and Non - Motorized Transportation Facilities Research Report. Review the
15
Plan and Report and provide comments to staff prior to presentation of the Draft
Plan and Report to the Commissioners. Recommend the Draft Plan and Report
to the Commissioners for their consideration.
Selkirk expressed appreciation for the comprehensive work done by McCalip
in providing such a huge amount of information for the Bicycle Committee. He
also expressed appreciation for the enthusiasm of the committee and recognized
Kelly Evenson noting she had attended every meeting of the committee.
McCalip stated that the plan has been sent out for informal review to the North
Carolina Bicycle Committee members, Dr. Gene Griner and Liz Rooks,
Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Durham. McCalip continued that he would send the
plan to all surrounding jurisdictions, state -wide planning branch, all of the
bicycle planning authorities that he is aware of and anyone else that the
Planning Board feels should review it
Barrows noted that she was impressed with the amount of work that had been
done to complete the draft plan. She asked for clarification of some of Carmen
Borg's work regarding things that counties can and cannot do in North Carolina
because of State laws. North Carolina laws prohibit counties from making road
improvements but they are unclear about sidewalks and trails.
McCalip responded that it is not clear. Durham County is requesting enabling
legislation authorizing the County of Durham to fund bikeways and trails. It is
very clear what municipalities can do. For counties, it does not specifically
mention pedestrian paths, bikeways and trails.
Selkirk noted that there were several places where roads were mentioned but
that sidewalks and bike paths were not specifically referenced. Several rules
and regulations were also mentioned.
Price asked the reality of the proposed bicycle transportation route, NC 86 as a
priority when it is a two -lane road and no space for bicycles without grave
endangerment. McCalip responded that is the #1 desired route of cyclists in
Orange County to be improved for transportation between Hillsborough, Chapel
Hill and Carrboro. We can't improve it on our own. It has to be done by the
State. The overall recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force is to include
some provisions for more bicycle funding in the State laws and Transportation
Improvement Program. At this time, there is only S3M for the entire state per
year and that is not enough. Most of this goes to urban areas.
Price continued what does the Planning Board need to do to make this become a
reality? McCalip responded that the Board could recommend that in the
legislative package for Orange County delegation to General Assembly to
include, as Durham County did, legislation for Orange County or across the
state for improvements such as these.
Selkirk asked that McCalip review the map of proposed routes explaining why
those routes were selected as the primary routes. McCalip explained that this
plan is for bicycle transportation as opposed to bicycle recreation. He referred
to the profile of the cyclist in the agenda materials noting that the design cyclist
is usually someone who has a driver's license and knows how to operate a
vehicle on the road whether it be a car or a bicycle. This cyclist is going to a
specific destination, usually to work and the intent of this plan is to address this
16
type of cyclist. The 1993 Regional Plan tried to address everyone at the same
time. It mixed child cyclists and novice adult cyclists with the advanced
cyclists. Most of the cyclists on the Task Force are advanced cyclists. They are
comfortable operating in traffic except for the roads in our county because they
are too narrow even for advanced cyclists to be able to navigate particularly
when large equipment is on the road. The whole orientation of this plan is for
transportation and for recreational cyclists to get to those areas providing for
recreation. Hopefully, there will be integration between this and the Master
Parks and Recreation Plan.
McCalip reviewed the schedule of meetings and what was studied and
determined at each meeting. He reviewed the primary and secondary routes
included in the plan and how they were determined.
Barrows asked for more information on what the Bicycle Committee has been
doing since creation in 1974 and why just 28 miles of bike lanes. McCalip
responded that most of what goes on in the state is in urban areas. Some states
have completely turned bicycle routes and lanes over to the municipalities to do
as they wish. In North Carolina funds are available and our region has been
trying to dedicate STP DA funds to bicycling pedestrian paths but there have
been stumbling blocks with NCDOT because it is the only region that is trying
to do so.
There was discussion about who should review and comment on the Draft Plan.
Selkirk asked for clarification of what should be done by the Planning Board to
move the plan forward and keep the process moving. McCalip responded
giving the recommendations of the Task Force from its fifth meeting as follows:
1. That a permanent and formal bicycle advisory committee be formed;
2. Dedicate staff to support the advisory committee;
3. Update the 1974 Bikeways Act;
4. That this task force remain together until after TIP project E3606 is
complete ($50,000.00 that the State has programmed for Orange
County to develop a bicycle suitability map).
McCalip noted that he had asked that the fimding be held until the plan was
completed. The suitability analysis was done in 1995.
Strayhom and other Board members did not endorse a "full- time" staff person to
support the Bike Advisory Committee. However, they did endorse part -time
support to the BAC.
It was the consensus of the Board that the specific recommendations of the Task
Force be included in the recommendation to the County Commissioners.
MOTION: Brooks moved to accept and forward the plan to the County Commissioners
with the recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force with part-time staff
support. Seconded by Price.
VOTE: Unanimous.
17
Orange County, North Carolina
P. LALLEMENT.
VELOCIPEDE.
No. 69,916. Patented Nov. 20, 1866.
7vz;...s
-2�a
.A Bicycle 2rransportation Plan
Draft .August 1998
Project Staff
Slade - McCalbp, Carmen Borg & Lauren ?'elder
Table of Contents
Foreword ...........................1.
Introduction ...........................2.
Section I. Goals & Priority Bicycle Transportation Routes
A. Goals & Objectives ...........................5.
Proposed Priority Bicycle Transportation Routes ...........................5a.
B. Performance Measures ...........................6.
Section H. Current Conditions
A. Use Data & Safety Problems ...........................7.
B. Suitability Analysis & Task Force Member's Route Assessments ...........................9.
C. Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations ..... 10.
D. State & Regional Laws, Plans, Programs, and Policies .........................10.
Section III. Strategies & Actions to Improve Bicycle Facilities and Programs
A. Facility Improvements (Roads) .........................13.
B. Programs to Increase Cyclist Safety and Efficient Cycling Transportation ...................13.
Section IV. Implementation
A. Schedule .........................15.
Section V. Evaluation
A. Assessing Progress (Pro -Bike Indicators) .........................16.
B. Making Corrections .........................16.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement
A. NC DOT Comments on the 1993 DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan
B. Quantifying Bicycling Benefits for Achieving Transportation Demand Management Goals
C. Excerpt from the 1998 -2004 North Carolina State TIP
D. DCHC Public Hearing Minutes on the draft 2025 Transportation Plan Goals & Objectives
E. NC DOT Roadway Designs for Bicycling with Pavement Width and Paved Shoulders Standards
F. TEA 21 Summary
G. Bicycle Commuter Profile
H. 1995 Orange County Suitability Study and 1998 Bicycle Task Force Assessments
I. Paved Entrance Design Diagram for Gravel Driveways and Sideroads on Bicycle Routes
J. Excerpt from the Orange County Economic Development District Design Manual
K. Non - Motorized Transportation Facility Planning in North Carolina Counties
19
BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE
YIELD T4 BIKES
Foreword
Bicycle Transportation Plan Development Process
The following Bicycle Plan Component Task Force Members: Keith Burwell, Jennie Capparella, Kelly
Evenson, Barry Freeman, Adrienne Jimenez, Adera Schienker, Mark Schulz, Chuck Tharp, and Chris van
Hasselt are citizens of Orange County that were appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners
on November 19, 1997 with the following specific charge: To prepare a Bicycle Plan Component to the
Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, including recommendations for
implementation, for all of Orange County outside of the municipal extra - territorial planning jurisdictions
and the transition areas of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan To per research for presentation to the
Orange County Board of Commissioners on innovative bicycle and pedestrian connections between
subdivisions and other developments. The Bicycle Plan Component should be based on the
recommendations in the DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan and the results of the 1995 Orange County Bicycle
Suitability Study. Appointment to the Task Force will expire with the Board of Commissioners decision on
whether or not to adopt the recommended Bicycle Plan Component.
In addition to the appointed citizens Orange County Planning Board Member James Selkirk volunteered to
assist in the development of the plan. Project Staff included: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Maintenance Engineer for Orange County, Chuck Edwards, Orange County Deputy Sheriff, Major Don
Truelove and Orange County Planning Staff consisting of Slade McCalip, Carmen Borg, and Lauren
Tedder.
The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Bicycle Plan over a 6 -month period. The Task Force
provided their input as to what the Goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes are the most
important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with
recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task
Force endorsed the draft plan contained herein at their June meeting.
The Task Force consists of members with the following cycling experience: environmental non- profit
organization leadership, life -long cycling advocate that does not own a car, epidemiology experts that want
to increase opportunities for physical activity, average citizens that cycle, a former bike shop owner, a
cyclist involved with real estate development, a cross county cycle commuter, an Effective Cycling
proponent cyclist, and a cycle commuter interested in more safety improvements.
The Task Force made the following recommendations to the Planning Board and Commissioners regarding
plan implementation; a) that a permanent and formal Bicycle Advisory Committee be established, b) that a
Bicycle Coordinator staff position be established to support the BAC, c) that the 1974 NC Bikeways Act be
updated, and d) that the current Bicycle Task Force remain together until after the Orange County Bicycle
Map is completed. The Planning Board at its August 5, 1998 meeting endorsed the plan and the
recommendations of the Task Force with the following exception; the Planning Board would only support
providing "part time" staff support to a Bicycle Advisory Committee and not a "full time" position.
0
RIDE
WITH
TRAFFIC
Introduction
TRANSPORTATIONPLAN
The purpose of this plan is to provide a Bicycle Transportation Component to the Transportation Element
of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. What exactly does this mean? It means that this is a plan
intended to develop transportation facilities and programs for bicyclists. "A successful bicycle program
would be one that made cycling safer, faster, and more convenient" (John Forester, Bicycle Transportation
- A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers NOT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994). The
transportation need that this plan seeks to address is that of providing bicycle transportation facilities
between the urban areas within and adjacent to Orange County that currently have adopted bicycle plans
(this includes the Towns of Hillsborough, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the City of Durham). This plan also
seeks to provide rural areas with secondary bicycle transportation routes to provide access to the urban
areas within and adjacent to Orange County.
ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SUPPLEMENT
This is a companion document to the Orange County Bicycle Plan and is intended for use as an appendix,
bibliography, and reference. The supplement is available upon request. For a complete listing of the
contents of the supplement see the Table of Contents for this plan.
1993 D URHAM- CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO (DCHC) REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN
This was the first bicycle plan developed specifically for Orange County. The Orange County Board of
Commissioners did not adopt the plan, but did direct that it be used as a planning guideline for the
development of this bicycle transportation plan. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
had significant concerns about the plan. The Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan seeks to address
most, if not all, of those concerns.
NORTH CAROLINA DOT COMMENTS ON THE 1993 DCHC REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN
The greatest concerns expressed by the reviewing agencies of the DOT were that the DCHC Bicycle Plan
mixed transportation cycling with recreational cycling. Of particular concern to DOT was the fact that the
DCHC Plan did not emphasize the different skills needed by the plan's design cyclists for their use of roads
for transportation cycling. DOT's greatest concern is that the DCHC Plan would encourage cyclists
without the proper traffic cycling skills to use roads during congested times and thereby increase the risk of
accident to novice and child cyclists. The DOT's comments are included in their entirety in Section A. of
the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement.
BICYCLES AS VEHICLES
In order to develop bicyclist transportation facilities and programs, bicycles must be considered as
transportation vehicles with rights equal to that of motor vehicles. In the words of John Forester,
renowned Cycling Transportation Engineer, "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of
vehicles." Bicycles as vehicles is the foundation of this of this plan and also the law in the state of North
Carolina, North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 20 -4.01 (49).
Does this mean that recreational bicyclists can't use the routes developed herein? On the contrary, it means
that recreational bicyclists will no longer have to drive their cars to remote locations to recreational
21
cycling, if this plan is implemented. The facilities described in this plan are intended to enable: bicycle
commuters to use their bikes to ride to work, people at home and at work the option of riding their bike to
shop and run errands, and also to enable recreational bicyclists to ride to their preferred recreational routes.
This plan is not intended to enable children or adults without the proper bicycle handling skills and traffic
navigation abilities to ride on roads. This plan does provide for the adequate education of children and
adult bicyclists to enable them to learn bicycle handling and traffic skills.
NOT A TYPICAL NORTH CAROLINA COUNTYBICYCLE PLAN
Most, if not all, of the counties in North Carolina that are performing bicycle planning adopt a map of local
bicycling routes without a schedule of improvements or performance measures to determine the progress of
the plan's implementation. This is because state law (NCGS 136 -51) vests the exclusive control,
management and responsibility for all public roads outside of municipalities with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
Therefore bicycling facilities outside of municipalities in North Carolina are under the control of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (see section II, Current Conditions, subsection D. Regional/State
Policies, Programs and Regulations). Counties can request that bicycle facilities are constructed, but the
decision to build the facilities is vested completely with North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Currently the North Carolina Department of Transportation will provide for local review and comment on a
proposed capacity improvement (road widening) or bridge replacement project. It is at this stage that
bicycling accommodations are included in the project if there exists a local, regional, or state bicycle plan
depicting that facility as part of an adopted bicycle route. It should also be noted that this plan does not
make engineering design recommendations contrary to current North Carolina Department of
Transportation's engineering design standards and policies as depicted in the North Carolina Bicycle
Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines, (NC DOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation,
January, 1994).
BICYCLING IS SUSTAINABILITY INDICA TOR
The number of bicycling trips and the percentage of total road mileage with bicycle facilities are
sustainable development indicators (SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICY RECOMMENDA-
TIONS FOR THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Department of City and Regional Planning, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1997, page 19). The Shaping Orange County's Future Sustainability
Committee states that "A sustainable community pursues ecological integrity and natural resource
conservation as well as the satisfaction of basic human needs for the present and for future generations"
(Committee Report on Sustainable Community for Orange County. Shaping Orange County's Future
Sustainability Committee, Orange County Department of Planning, 1998, page. l).
"Bicycling produces virtually no air pollution. Per mile air pollution savings are large because bicycling
usually replaces short, cold start trips for which internal combustion engines have their highest emission
rates, so each 1% of automobile travel replaced by bicycling decreases motor vehicle air pollution by 2%
to 4%. " (see Section B. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement, Quantifying Bicycling Benefits
for Achieving Transportation Demand Management Goals, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, 1994, page 2).
ADVOCATE OF CHANGE
This plan advocates changes at the state, regional, and local levels to statutes, programs, policies and
ordinances in order to accomplish the goals as set forth by the Orange County Bicycle Plan Component
Task Force. These changes are especially needed by counties experiencing growth within and between the
towns in their jurisdictions. These changes are also needed to enable counties in metropolitan planning
areas of poor air quality to provide alternative transportation modes to the single occupant automobile.
K4
In brief, for this plan to be implemented as recommended herein (i.e., inter -urban county bicycling
facilities), changes must be made to the amount of funding that is "earmarked" for cycling and in the way
that roads, that are also bicycle routes, are planned, programmed, constructed and maintained by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. Cycling funds must become a dedicated source of funding similar
to that of the Highway Trust Fund (see Section C. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement for an
excerpt from the 1998 -2004 North Carolina State Transportation Improvement Program), whereby a
portion of state transportation funds can only be used to build and improve bicycle routes. Also changes
made at the state and regional levels will likely require commensurate changes at the local level to
subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances.
CURRENT PLANNING FRAMEWORK
In Orange County the adopted Board of County Commissioners Goals and Objectives directs that bicycle
planning be done. The FY 97 -98 Goals and Objectives include a provision (Objective 4 - Update the
Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan) to develop a Bicycle Component to
the Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Also being prepared as a result of
the Board's Goals and Objectives is the development of a Joint Master Recreation and Parks Plan. It has
been recommended that this new plan also contain a Recreational Bicycling Element to address the
concerns of county residents about child, novice and off -road cycling opportunities. These two Bicycling
Plan initiatives (transportation and recreation) will provide an excellent opportunity at the local level to
institutionalize cycling into land use planning and regulatory functions.
The Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (regional transportation
planning body) is currently developing a 2025 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. At this time there is
little documentation on what, if any, changes will be made to the adopted 1993 DCHC Regional Bicycle
Plan. However, some of the more critical comments raised by citizens (concerning the draft Goals and
Objectives for the new plan) are that.there are no performance measures or facility construction goals for
bicycle transportation in the plan (see Section D. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement for the
Transportation Advisory Committee meeting minutes for the May 13, 1998 Public Hearing on the 2025
Transportation Plan: Draft Goals & Objectives). It should also be mentioned that since the adoption of the
1993 DCHC Regional Bicycle Plan that the local governments of the Towns of Hillsborough and Chapel
Hill, the City of Durham and Orange County have all adopted or are currently developing new bicycle
plans for their respective jurisdictions.
At the state level, from 1987 to 1997 only 28 miles of paved shoulders have been constructed by NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION out of the 78,000 miles of roadway maintained by
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Bicycling & Walking in North Carolina
- A Long -Range Transportation Plan, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, November 1996, page 28). It should be noted that if NC DOT were to
provide the lane widths and raved shoulders as called for in their own Roadway Design Manual and
Bicycle Facilities Design Guidelines (see Section E. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement),
then almost every (except for one) bicycle route depleted in this plan would have its travel lanes widened
and seven of the routes would have been provided with paved shoulders.
At the federal level President Clinton has signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA
21) into law. TEA 21 provides the same type of bicycle transportation facility funding opportunities with
even more consideration and eligibility for funding bicycle transportation under the various transportation
funding programs (see Section F. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement for a TEA 21 Summary).
Once again, as in 1991, there is an opportunity to provide an increased amount of cycling transportation
facilities. It should be noted that TEA 21, like its predecessor ISTEA, is more of an "enabling" legislation
that will allow states to fund bicycle transportation facilities, If the Governor and the Secretary of the
NORTH CAROLINA Board of Trans ortadon so choose to do so under the enhancement and other
provisions of the legislation.
4
I. GOALS & PRIORITY BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
A. Goals and Objectives — The Goals for this plan were developed by the Bicycle Task Force at their third
meeting. Subsequent meetings were used for the discussion and development of how to implement the
goals (i.e., objectives to be accomplished to progress toward accomplishment of the goals). The progress
of the implementation of this plan can be gauged through an assessment of the number and type of pro -
bike indicators.
GOAL #l.
CONSTRUCT BICYCLE FACILITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT WILL MAKE CYCLING FOR
TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES SAFER, MORE CONVENIENT, AND MORE EFFICIENT.
GOAL #1 OBJECTIVES. (or things that would make goal #1 happen if they were to happen)
WIDEN all Primary Priority Bicycle Transportation highway travel lanes to 12 feet and provide 4 feet of
paved shoulder before signing them as a Bicycle Route (see Orange County Proposed Priority Bicycle
Transportation Routes Map, July, 1998 on page 5a of this plan).
IDENTIFY staff and elected officials responsible for bicycling improvements.
INCLUDE bicycling improvements as a staff assigned responsibility with an elected official identified as
being bicycling supportive.
ESTABLISH a Bicycle Advisory Committee at the local and regional levels.
CREATE and FORMALIZE a Bicycle Transportation Program in Orange County to include; commitment
of resources, developing the primary and secondary routes, developing and implementing the education,
enforcement, and encouragement programs to change cycling and motorist behavior to make cycling safer.
CHANGE state and regional bicycle transportation policies and programs to include dedicated funding for
bicycle improvements to include funding "triggers" (i.e., in areas of poor air quality, more cycling facilities
should be funded) based upon regional air quality.
CHANGE maintenance programs to include better surfacing and 4 foot paved shoulders on primary priority
bicycle transportation routes.
PROVIDE intersection improvements and treatments to provide for better turning and through movements
for cyclists to include bicycle pavement markings and "bicycle sensitive" traffic signal actuators.
s
a
Orange County
Proposed Priority Bicycle Transportation Routes
Le�,.,�..
/V Primary Priority
July 1998
44.3 miles
Secondary Priority 100.4 miles
® Requested Order of Implementation
(t i ra,. �°� ul "
3" Ywn{
74-M
24
GOAL #2.
25
INCREASE SAFETY ON ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ROUTES.
GOAL #2 OBJECTIVES. (or things that would make goal #2 happen if they were to happen)
INCREASE child and adult cyclist traffic procedure education and bicycling skills.
INCREASE driver education and awareness of cyclist rights and traffic maneuvers.
INCREASE helmet and headlight usage.
PROVIDE cycling mapping and route signing on those routes improved for cycling.
PROVIDE law enforcement that targets illegal cyclist and motorist behavior in regard to the cycling rights
in North Carolina law. -
REVISE and PROVIDE for more accurate cycling accident reporting by cyclists, police, EMS, and
emergency rooms.
PROVIDE "end of trip" and "inter- modal" cycling accommodations through local and regional land use
and transportation planning.
B. Performance Measures
ASSESS the implementation progress of the plan. It is critically important to have an accounting of
indicators as to whether or not the plan is progressing. The key performance measures for this plan are the
annual number of miles of road lanes widened to 12 feet and number of miles of 4 foot shoulders
constructed and also the number of persons attending the cyclist skills and traffic education courses.
6
0
II. CURRENT CONDITIONS
A. Use Data and Safety Problems
COMMUTER PROFILE or DESIGN CYCLIST
In the May /June 1997 issue of Bicycle USA (magazine of the League of American Bicyclists) an article was
published that profiled what they estimated to be typical bicycle commuters (see Section G. of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Supplement for the complete article). The Task Force reviewed this article. A local
survey would be preferable, but the funds and work program to perform such a survey were not included in
the project design for the development of this plan. As reported in the article;
"What Average' Bike Commuters Revealed
in
Note that 20% of the respondents were female. In the results that follow female responses appear
"[ ] ".
The survey results indicate that the `average' bike commuters are 40 [37] year -old professionals
(59 %[53]) with a household income in excess of $45,000 per year who bike commute 10.6 [10.2] months
per year. The average annual bicycle commuting distance was 1,921 [1,581] miles while these same
cyclists rode an average of 3,387 [2,854] miles for all trip purposes. Just under 10% reported having an
accident in the previous 12 months.
Our man [and woman] -in- the - saddle has bike commuted an average of 8.7 [6.4] years and make
8.2 [7.9] one -way commute trips per week. They reported their average bike commute each -way as 7.4
[6.4] miles and taking 30.9 [30.0] minutes. There were two hardy souls who claimed 42 [and 41] years of
bike commuting.
For 71% [67 %] bicycling was their primary commuting mode. For the rest, weather (39 %[37 %])
and needing a car at work (8 %[7 %]) were the two major reasons they didn't bike commute more often."
ESTIMATED ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE COMMUTERS
There is no valid estimate of the total number of cyclists that commute to work by bicycle at this time for
Orange County. There are however two reasonable travel behavior surveys that have been performed in
Orange County by a local major employer and by the regional (three county) transit authority that indicate
the potential bicycle commuter base in Orange County. As demonstrated below, these travel surveys
indicate that the current amount of bicycle commuters in Orange County is in excess of 3,396. Since 1995
only these two surveys have been performed to determine travel behavior in Orange County.
The major employer survey (University Commutin¢ Study for the University of North Carolina at
Chanel Hill, performed by the University of North Carolina Department of Public Safety) was
performed to determine the commuting preferences of the students and employees of UNC. This
survey indicated that there are approximately 3,396 persons commuting by bicycle per day during the
academic year (514 employees or 3.7% of total employees and 2,882 students or 16.5% of total
students). Any questions about the survey should be directed to Raymond Magyar, UNC
Transportation Planner, at 962 -5028.
27
The regional travel behavior survey (the 1994/1995 Triangle Travel Behavior Survey, performed by
the Triangle Transit Authority or TTA) was performed to determine the commuting and other travel
preference of persons living in the Triangle Region of North Carolina (Wake, Durham and Orange
Counties). This survey indicated that, in 1995, 1.4% of all trips made across the Triangle are made
using a bicycle. Any questions about the survey should be directed to Joe Huegy, TTA Senior
Transportation Planner, at 406 -1710.
Some calculations or inferences have been made using the above surveys to demonstrate the local nature of
bicycle trip making propensity and are provided below:
✓ In 1995 there were 37,397 persons employed within Orange County. It is assumed that each of these
persons made a trip to work and a trip from work for a total of 74,794 work trips from an employment
site located in Orange County. This number does not include person trips for persons that live in
Orange County but commute to jobs outside of the county (which could possibly be an additional
37,206 work trips as estimated by the Triangle Regional Modeling Team for the year 1995 using an
unvalidated computer simulation model).
If the local major employer (UNC) factor of 3.7% is applied to total "in- county" employment trips of
74,794, then there would be approximately 2,767 bike commute trips for the whole county plus those
bikers who commute to jobs out of the county by bicycle. Add the 2,767 possible bike employee
commuters to the already existing UNC student commuter trips (2,882 * 2 = 5,764) and the estimated
total possible county bike transportation trips per day is 8,531.
=> If the triangle -wide (TTA) average of 1.4% (i.e., the bicycling portion of all trips) is applied to the
total possible number of employee commute trips (74,794) there would only be a possible 1,047
bicycle trips for county employees. Add the UNC student commuters (5,764) to 1,047 and you have
an estimated total possible county bike transportation trips per day of 6,811.
=> And finally, if the national average of 0.7% (i.e., the bicycling portion of all trips) is applied to the
total possible number of employee commute trips (74,794) there would only be a possible 523 bicycle
trips for county employees. Add the UNC student commuters (5,764) to 523 and you have an
estimated total possible county bike transportation trips per day of 6,287.
As demonstrated above, the current methods of inferring cycling trips from major employer and regional
surveys is not as accurate as counting motor vehicle trips with a rubber hose across the road! Additional
survey work is needed to provide numbers of cyclists by route and also to identify potential major
employers that would have cyclists. In addition to a lack of travel survey data for estimating current
bicycle usage, there is currently no valid method for predicting future bicycle commuting numbers.
However, according the Bicycle News Agency, in their February 8th, 1998 webpage posting; "US Cycling
Doubles - While Britain seemingly struggles to double cycle usage by 2002, the USA is celebrating news
that the number of cycle commuters is up from 3.3 million in 1990 to 7.9 million now. A Bicycling
Magazine survey is said to have found that if conditions improve, 29.9 million would bike - commute."
This would constitute a 359% increase in bicycle commuters.
At this time there is nothing to indicate that bicycle commuting will increase by 359% in Orange County in
the near future. Nor is there anything at this time that indicates that all those persons who say that they will
cycle commute in the future if better facilities are provided will live up to that promise. What is indicated
in the future for Orange County automobile commuters is more frequent and longer periods of congestion
on the arterial (or main transportation) highways of the county. There is research being performed at this
time at the national and Triangle Regional levels to develop methods to forecast bicycle commute trips.
This plan should be updated periodically to determine the validity of its recommendations based upon
future bicycle commuter forecasts.
CYCLIST BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION
The Orange County Sheriffs Department made the following observations about cyclist behavior in
Orange County. As you will notice, both observations are about recreational cyclists and their programs.
=> Most of the cycling violations observed by the Sheriffs Department are cyclists riding two or more
abreast on rural roads. ,
=> Most of the cycling complaints received by the Sheriffs Department are due to "unannounced"
Bicycle Races and Tours. One race organizer placed flyers announcing their race in the mailboxes
along the race route and there were no complaints received about that particular cycling event.
CURRENT CRASH DATA
Orange County cyclist crash data is hard to retrieve and must be done by hand. Each and every accident
record must be reviewed individually to determine if cycling was involved or mentioned in the accident or
emergency room reports. Currently, neither the police nor hospital emergency rooms maintain cyclist
crash data as a separate category. State -wide data from "1990 to 1994 there were 6,400 bicycle\motor
vehicle crashes reported to the Division of Motor Vehicles, or about 1,280 per year" (Bicycling & Walking
in North Carolina - A Lone -Range Transportation Plan . Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, November 1996, page 41).
Reprinted with the permission of John Forester is the following table from page 62 of his book Bicycle
Transportation — A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers:
Table 5-16 Factors Responsible
For Cycling Injuries & Deaths
This table clearly shows that increasing cyclist safety cannot be "engineered" alone. As cyclists cause one-
half of all the their own injuries and deaths, an effective bicycle program would have to include trying to
influence cyclist behavior through education, awareness and law enforcement. In order to target such a
bicycle program to address Orange County specific behavioral and engineering deficiencies, accident
reporting regarding cyclist crashes must be improved and made more extensive.
B. 1995 Orange County Suitability Analysis &
1998 Bicycle Plan Component Task Force Route Assessments
(for full text of both documents see Section H. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement).
Both documents indicate the following major deficiencies common in all of the proposed bicycle routes:
=- No cycling intersection treatments.
=> No cycling railroad crossing treatments.
Inadequate bridge deck widths and low bridge rails.
Inadequate pavement surface maintenance.
9
Percent
Cyclist error
50
Road - surface defect
20
Motorist error
8
Bicycle equipment failure
6
Pedestrians
4
Dogs
2
Insufficient signal clearance
1
Road - design defect
< 0.5
Road - capacity overload
< 0.5
Undetermined
8
This table clearly shows that increasing cyclist safety cannot be "engineered" alone. As cyclists cause one-
half of all the their own injuries and deaths, an effective bicycle program would have to include trying to
influence cyclist behavior through education, awareness and law enforcement. In order to target such a
bicycle program to address Orange County specific behavioral and engineering deficiencies, accident
reporting regarding cyclist crashes must be improved and made more extensive.
B. 1995 Orange County Suitability Analysis &
1998 Bicycle Plan Component Task Force Route Assessments
(for full text of both documents see Section H. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement).
Both documents indicate the following major deficiencies common in all of the proposed bicycle routes:
=- No cycling intersection treatments.
=> No cycling railroad crossing treatments.
Inadequate bridge deck widths and low bridge rails.
Inadequate pavement surface maintenance.
9
0
=> Lack of debris removal from edge of pavement.
=> Lack of "pave- backs" (of at least 15 feet, see Section I. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement
for diagram) to keep the gravel from driveways and other unpaved accesses from washing out onto
paved roads.
=> Insufficient lane widths.
=> Lack of paved shoulders exacerbating the insufficient lane widths.
C. Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision
Regulations.
Each of these documents should be amended to include cycling provisions like those in the Orange County
Economic Development District Design (EDD) Manual (see Section J. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan
Supplement). The EDD Manual has provisions that recognize bicycle routes and end -of -trip facilities (bike
parking racks and storage lockers). Further provisions need to be developed to: a) encourage employers of
a certain magnitude and location proximate to a town provide lockers, showers, and changing rooms, and
b) provide that residential subdivisions of a certain magnitude and in a proximate location to a town
provide suitable street width and off -road connections to adjacent subdivisions and/or recreation trails or
parks. These documents should also be amended to insure the integration of this the Bicycle
Transportation Component to the Transportation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan with
the Bicycle Recreation Component of Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan (currently under
development).
D. State & Regional Laws, Plans, Programs, and Policies
North Carolina State Law: Ultimate Control of County Road Maintenance and Construction
Jurisdiction over the construction and maintenance of public roads in counties, "the exclusive control and
management and responsibility for all public roads in the several counties shall be vested in the Department
of Transportation' (see NCGS, Chapter 136, Roads and Highways, Article 3- State Highway System,
Section 136 -51, page 112). Therefore, most on -road facilities within county jurisdictions are built as
incidental projects during new road construction and then maintained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Although some on -road facilities are constructed as independent projects, these instances
are rare. It appears that law does not expressly prohibit counties from constructing and maintaining off -
road facilities such as bicycle paths in parks or in public right -of -ways.
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
The State of North Carolina provides funding for the construction of sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and
multi-use paths through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The ultimate control over the
programming of the State TIP is vested in the North Carolina Board of Transportation. Bicycle facilities
can be included in the TIP as incidental design features of a highway project or as independent projects.
Independent projects constructed outside of municipalities are rare and usually have strong political
support at the state level. Incidental (or ad hoc) bicycle improvements are being constructed although in a
piecemeal fashion as road capacity is increased. Therefore, for a road to be improved for cycling it must
first have to be improved for motor vehicle traffic.
NC DOT Bicycle Policy
The North Carolina Department of Transportation acknowledges bicycle transportation as "an integral part
of the comprehensive transportation system in North Carolina" and formally includes provisions for
bicycle travel in highway construction projects (NC DOT Transportation Plan, 1996, page 14). NC DOT
also participates in the construction of independent bicycle facility projects through the TIP process. (NC
DOT Transportation Plan, 1996, page 19). For a list of criteria for bicycle facilities project selection and
the complete NC DOT Bicycle Policy, see Section K. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement.
10
Ell
There are no specific performance measures for bicycling facility construction as in the City of Portland
Bicycle Master Plan, whereby they have listed (and therefore documented their accountability for making it
happen) the following benchmarks: By 5 years - 75% of streets have appropriate bikeway facilities, By 10
years - 85% of streets have appropriate bikeway facilities, By 20 years - 95% of streets have appropriate
bikeway facilities. Benchmarks in the Portland plan are also included for maintenance and end -of -trip
facilities. The plan for North Carolina does not include any goals or benchmarks that are so specific that
they could be used to affect the programming of the State Transportation Improvement Program for the
construction of specific bicycle facilities.
NC DOT Pavement Policy
The following tables are recreated as excerpts from the NC DOT Roadway Design Manual and are
intended to illustrate the existing pavement width policy for NC DOT (for the entire tables see Section E.
of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement). This policy should be enforced and endorced by NC DOT
by providing more funding toward increasing existing pavement widths and paved shoulders to the
standard as depicted through existing maintenance programs.
DESIGN CRITERIA PAVEMENT WIDTHS
Functional
Classification
\ Design Speed Current Year ADT* I)Pcion vPar a 7lT
PAVED SHOULDER POLICY FOR TWO LAMP TWO W A V R n e roc
Design Year ADT < 4000
< 400
>400
1000 -2000
2000 -4000
>4000
Local \ 50 mph
20
22
22
24
24
Collector\50 mph
20
22
22
24
24
Arterial\50 mph
22
24
24
24
24
PAVED SHOULDER POLICY FOR TWO LAMP TWO W A V R n e roc
Design Year ADT < 4000
Full Shoulder Width to be Turf.
Design Year ADT 4000 -8000
2 -Foot full depth paved shoulders.
Design Year ADT >8000
4 -Foot full depth paved shoulders.
*ADT — Means Average Daily Traffic or number of vehicles that will use that particular segment of the
roadway during a 24 hour period.
NC DOT General Programs and Policies Summary
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is the agency that oversees the network of roadways,
airways, railways and waterways in the state. Within the agency, the division with the primary
responsibility for pedestrian and bicycle programs is the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
(OBPT) (NC DOT Transportation Plan, 1996, page 14). The Bicycle and Bikeway Act of 1974 created the
North Carolina Bicycle Committee, a seven -member citizen committee appointed by the Secretary of
Transportation to assist OBPT in its efforts. This committee is charged with, among other things,
"represent(ing) the interests of bicyclists in advising the Secretary on all matters... pertaining to bicycles
and bikeways ", and "promot(ing) the best interests of the bicycling public..." (NC DOT Transportation
Plan, 1996, page 17). See Section E. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement for a complete copy
of the Bicycle and Bikeway Act of 1974.
Historically, the Highways Division of NC DOT has also participated in bicycle planning and facility
construction through adding bicycling facilities to new roads as part of the Transportation Improvement
Program. OBPT has been very influential in assisting, planning, programming and providing other
assistance to the municipalities of North Carolina. Because of the passage of ISTEA in 1991 the demands
on their services have increased several -fold. As it is incumbent upon local governments to provide
dedicated funding to demonstrate their commitment to cycling, it is incumbent upon the Governor and the
Secretary of the NORTH CAROLINA Board of Transportation to provide increased resources to OBPT to
demonstrate a "renewed" commitment on the part of the State to bicycling.
11
31
The following is a brief summary of some of the key points in NC DOT's bicycle policies and programs.
The policies and details for each program are quite complex and tend to be difficult for practitioners not
accustomed to working with large agencies to decipher, therefore this plan only refers to the key principles.
Copies of each policy are in Section E. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement. A more
comprehensive review of these policies and programs can also be found in the NC DOT Transportation
Plan (1996).
Other NC DOT Programs
Other programs besides facility construction administered by the OBPT include development of design
guidelines for bicycling and pedestrian facilities, designation of bicycling highway routes, mapping of local
bicycle routes and bicycle safety promotion (NC DOT Transportation Plan, 1996, page 22).
Durha»rChapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (Regional Planning Agency)
The current policy of the DCHC MPO is to make their Direct Attributable funds (a funding category under
the ISTEA Surface Transportation Program for MPO's with populations of 200,000 or more) available to
municipalities within the MPO for them to construct independent bicycling projects. State Laws and NC
DOT policies and programs in their independent funding of bicycling projects limit the DCHC MPO. In
particular, the DCHC MPO cannot program funds for the construction of independent bicycle projects
outside of municipalities without the cooperative programming of the same project by NC DOT. In other
words, the DCHC MPO is constrained by State Laws and NC DOT Policies in what they can and cannot
program for bicycle construction projects. The DCHC MPO is the only MPO in NORTH CAROLINA that
is making its Direct Attributable Funds available to local governments for the construction of independent
bicycle projects. However, a shortcoming of DCHC Regional Transportation Plans is that these plans have
not, to date, contained real performance measures or benchmarks for bicycle facility construction (see
Section D. of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Supplement for a copy of the minutes from the public
hearing).
12
`wig
32
III. TASK FORCE STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO IMPROVE
BICYCLE FACILITIES & PROGRAMS
A. Facility Improvements for Roads (demonstrates commitment by state elected officials, Orange
County's legislative delegation, and the appointed officials to the North Carolina Board of
Transportation and North Carolina Bicycle Committee that represent Orange County)
Increase dedicated funding for bicycling facilities (need a provision similar to the Urban Loop
Legislation whereby funds must be only used for constructing bicycling facilities), this is especially
important for MPOs with poor air quality.
=> Allow Counties to fund and construct alternative modes of transportation (i.e., sidewalks and paved
shoulders) within NC DOT owned right -of -way along state maintained roads.
=> Allow greater local input and prioritization of bicycle project construction programming.
Provide greater emphasis and funding for the surface quality and debris removal on primary and
secondary bicycling transportation routes.
=> Include measurable goals and benchmarks (i.e., increase the total number of dedicated bicycle lane
miles by 100 miles statewide, or 1 mile per county, per year for the next 20 years).
=> Recognize those Bicycle Routes designated by the locals, regions, and state as being significant so that
these routes receive the priority of funding for construction of paved shoulders and maintenance.
B. Programs to Increase Cyclist Safety and Efficient Transportation Cycling (demonstrates commitment
by local elected officials)
• Land Use Planning (demonstrates commitment by local government officials):
=> provide end -of -trip facilities (mostly bike parking racks and lockers with some employers providing
showers and clothing lockers for employees) at multi - family residential, commercial, government,
institutions (i.e., hospitals), schools, recreation sites, and major employment centers.
=> include in access management plans provisions for bicycle routes (i.e., arterial & collector routes that
are also bicycle routes should be more stringent on driveway access permits).
=> in addition to access management plans, increase the construction of median divided roads and
accommodate this road design in small area and countywide plans.
=:> make provisions for cyclists on transit routes with bike racks on buses and bike parking at stops.
=> insure that adequate right -of -way is dedicated along bicycle routes to provide for 4' paved shoulders in
the future.
• Enforcement (demonstrates commitment to cyclist behavior modification by local police & sheriff)
make enforcement of cycling laws with cyclists and motorists alike a county priority, and pursue
greater involvement of state and local law enforcement.
require that cyclist violators face significant fines for breaking traffic laws or attend and successfully
complete the League of American Bicyclist's Effective Cycling Course in lieu of paying the fine.
13
01
+ Education (demonstrates commitment to cyclist behavior modification by local school board)
expand the Effective Cyclist Course availability.
teach Effective Cycling Course in Middle and High School Curriculums.
include Effective Cycling Course materials in Drivers Education Classes.
=> insure that the North Carolina Drivers Examination includes questions about cycling.
=:� include the Basics of Bicycling Course in Elementary Schools.
* Encouragement (demonstrates commitment by community at large for cycling)
develop incentives for major employers to promote cycle commuting.
=> change the North Carolina Department of Transportation's policies to include more advertising of the
benefits of cycling.
14
10' - Ira
a 1 a
M IL i I
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
34
A. Schedule of Construction for 4` Paved Shoulders on all Orange County Primary Priority Bicycle
Transportation Routes (no estimate was included for widening to 12' for those roads that need it)
Date
Name
Location
Length .
Estimated
in miles
Cost
by 2000
Change local,
Orange County
?
regional, and state
laws, plans,
programs, and
policies
by 2005
Primary Rte 1 and
NC 86 from Chapel Hill to
13.1
$1,310,000
1/2 of Primary Rte 2
Hillsborough, and Old NC 10 from
Hillsborough to Durham
by 2010
Remainder of
West 10 from Hillsborough to
6.6
$660,000
Primary Rte 2
Mebane
by 2015
NC Rte 2, Primary
Old Greensboro Road from Chapel
8.9
$890,000
Rte 3
Hill to Alamance County
by 2020
Primary Rtes 4, 5,
Erwin Road, Whitfield Road, and
10.2
$1,020,000
and 6
Old NC 86
by 2025
Primary Rtes 7 and 8
Jones Ferry Road and Mt. Carmel
5.5
$550,000
Church Road
TOTALS
44.3
1 $4,430,000
NOTES:
1. Improvements to the Orange County Secondary Priority Routes should be made using Operations,
Safety and Maintenance funds.
2. Unit cost estimation factor is $100,000 per mile to include right -of -way acquisition and construction of
4' paved shoulders on both sides of rural highways. There was no adjustment for inflation from 1993
dollars to 1998 dollars. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 1993.
3. Total approximate Transportation Facilities Funding for Orange County from 1998 to 2004 =
$150,250,000. Source: NC DOT's 1998 to 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program.
In other words, the 1.31 million dollars required to construct bicycling facilities for Orange County by
the year 2005 is less than 1% of the total amount of funds allocated to Orange County for the
construction of transportation facilities from 1998 to 2004.
4. This table is only for illustrative purposes only. Better cost estimates can be developed by NC DOT
staff using more up to date unit cost estimate factors for 4' paved shoulders and also by providing unit
cost estimates for constructing additional lane width on existing roads.
15
V. EVALUATION
35
A. Assessing Progress - Pro - Bicycle indicators will provide the tasks, if completed, that will accomplish
the objectives and therefore the goals of this plan.
1. The presence of a Bicycle Program Coordinator defines the very existence of a formalized bicycle
program.
2. Citizens are involved through a formalized Bicycle Advisory Board (created by ordinance or
resolution) and other advocacy groups.
3. Elected Officials and Government Professionals (engineers, planners, police and others) support
cyclists.
4. Inclusion of Bicyclist considerations in annual budget.
5. Planning and policy documents include bicycling considerations.
6. Regulations, codes and ordinances mandate minimum standards for bicycling considerations.
7. Roadway design manuals ensure provisions for cycling.
8. Bicyclists are represented on the Planning Board.
9. Professional Staff regularly attends bicycle - related training.
10. Bicycling considerations are included in overall Transportation Demand Management Strategies.
11. Road Maintenance includes debris removal and other related cyclist considerations.
12. Better cycling crash reporting has been institutionalized.
13. Communities have been designated by the League of American Bicyclists as Bicycle Friendly.
B. Making Corrections
1. Annual report on the above Pro -Bike Indicators should be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. The Annual report should also contain recommendations (to include names, phone numbers and
tasks to be accomplished) for the accomplishment of Pro -Bike tasks not completed.
16